What's the Dem's plan for the Middle East?

[John21]

With the blame game and finger pointing going on right now, I'm not hearing too much on what the Democrat's Mid-East plan is. I'm not saying they don't have one, but with all the static it's hard to pick up on any constructive dialog. The only position/strategy I've heard, other than soundbites, was from Kerry.

[jt1]

I'm not sure if it's that different. The Dems are basically furious that America is in such a tight spot. In their minds, we needn't be in this situation and it's hard for them to look forward when there's so much resentment.

In general, they prefer more contact. The republicans like to take a hard line whereas the Dems want to talk face to face as often as possible. This is relevant with Israel/Palestine, Syria and Iran. This is about the only difference that I know of.

And of course, they favor a timeline of 3 years or less in Iraq whereas the Republicans are looking at 10 years or more. So that's an enormous difference.

[cardcounter0]

Step 1: Get rid of Bush.
Step 2: Get rid of Rumsfield.

Steps 3 thru 999,999 will fall right into place after that.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Step 1: Get rid of Bush.
Step 2: Get rid of Rumsfield.

Steps 3 thru 999,999 will fall right into place after that.

[/ QUOTE ]


counter,

While this is just another typical post of yours, i.e. a drive-by one-liner no content post with nothing to back it up, you have actually stumbled on something here, as that is precisely what we repubs have been saying. That is, that the democrat party's platform mainly consists of NOT! with no policy alternatives, and the hope that things will just work themselves out magically if they regain power. They hope to so focus the electorate on their assertions that what the repubs are doing is so bad, that they don't consider that the as yet hidden steps 3-999 of the democrats might produce even worse results.

[cardcounter0]

And your as usual contentless post is the only defense the Repugs can throw up. "Sure they have screwed everything up, but imagine how much worse the Democrats would make it. Better stay the course you know won't work, it might be worse doing something else."

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
That is, that the democrat party's platform mainly consists of NOT! with no policy alternatives, and the hope that things will just work themselves out magically if they regain power. They hope to so focus the electorate on their assertions that what the repubs are doing is so bad, that they don't consider that the as yet hidden steps 3-999 of the democrats might produce even worse results.


[/ QUOTE ]


You are half right. However, Dems and Repubs have always been on the same page though not always on the same line. Differences are few and pretty minor, missile defense, size of millitary, negotiation tactics. Both sides agree on a need for 1) millitary alliances that include the transfer of technology and intelligence, 2) having the worlds strongest millitary, 3)proactively using it to garde against future threats.

The only major difference is their respective definitions of #3. Republicans have thought that Saddam was a major threat since 1995 or so. Whereas dems have thought overthrowing the Baathist would be too reckless but thought using the millitary in Kosovo and Somalia (Bush I initiated that but had more democratic support than republican (i think)), and Rwawand to be strategically necessary (Clinton disagreed). The Republican foundation for when to use the millitary has always been "only if it is of critical importance to the security of the U.S.?" And the Democratic foundation is "only if international stability is at stake."

If you ask me, it's more a question of judgement than philosophy. When choosing who to trust on international matters, you should look at their experience and intelligence because the philosophies of the two parties are pretty similar.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Step 1: Get rid of Bush.
Step 2: Get rid of Rumsfield.

Steps 3 thru 999,999 will fall right into place after that.

[/ QUOTE ]


counter,

While this is just another typical post of yours, i.e. a drive-by one-liner no content post with nothing to back it up, you have actually stumbled on something here, as that is precisely what we repubs have been saying. That is, that the democrat party's platform mainly consists of NOT! with no policy alternatives, and the hope that things will just work themselves out magically if they regain power. They hope to so focus the electorate on their assertions that what the repubs are doing is so bad, that they don't consider that the as yet hidden steps 3-999 of the democrats might produce even worse results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taking out the two people who screwed it up the most and replacing them with person's who are willing to think is a huge thing, BluffThis!...

Try as they may, the administration has run out of excuses and justifications for their incompetence. Sure their little war against the decrepit Iraqi army was a stunning success. Figure out how much it cost us though...

1. Deficit spending places our currency in peril;

2. Loss of credibility prevents us from obtaining meaningful international cooperation against our other (and more dangerous) enemies;

3. Fiscal irresponsibility hinders our ability to finance other actions against our other (and more dangerous) enemies;

4. The occupation of Iraq has spread our armed services so thin that we are most likely incapable of taking action against our other (and more dangerous enemies); and

5. Due to number 4, our other (and more dangerous) enemies have had the opportunity and encouragement to grow even stronger.

I don't know what the dems are going to do with this mess the republicans are handing them, but when people screw up badly, and have the demonstrated capacity to continually screw up badly, they need to be fired.

[BluffTHIS!]

morph and all,

Just because you think the CEO/board of a company needs to be fired, doesn't automatically mean that hiring the janitor to fill his position will produce better results. Your desire to punish that CEO/board could end up punishing you the stakeholders, even more. Obviously strong democrats who really care more about ideology should have less of a problem with that than centrists or repubs. Handing the democrats power isn't the only alternative, as replacing repubs with other repubs is possible, as well giving the dems only partial power in one house of congress.

[kurto]

One could argue that we're talking about firing the janitorial staff whose been running the company and putting in some people who are more akin to CEO who can (pun intended) clean up the mess.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
morph and all,

Just because you think the CEO/board of a company needs to be fired, doesn't automatically mean that hiring the janitor to fill his position will produce better results. Your desire to punish that CEO/board could end up punishing you the stakeholders, even more. Obviously strong democrats who really care more about ideology should have less of a problem with that than centrists or repubs. Handing the democrats power isn't the only alternative, as replacing repubs with other repubs is possible, as well giving the dems only partial power in one house of congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Rumsfeld was the janitor... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

That's a fair point, but now that Al Gore is out of the mix, I think we'll have some one better than a janitor to come in...

I would actually support McCain too, but we'll have to see what happens.